1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Orissa Watershed Developemnt Mission - Индия

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

1.4 Ссылка (-и) на Анкету (-ы) по Технологиям УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

Participatory Sustainable Rural Livelihood Approach adopts participatory tools for livelihood situational analysis of the five capitals(Physical, Financila,Social, Human and Natural) and prepare livelihood focussed micro plan with the commuity for sustai

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

Aims / objectives: Participatory Sustainable Rural Livelihood Approach uses the DFID's Sustainable Rural Livelihood Framework. The approach adopts participatory processes during planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.The out put of the planning process is a livelihood focussed micro plan. The process of micro plan preparation with the community consists of rapport building, livelihood situational analysis, problem identification and prioritisation, negotiation and development of action plan. The livelihood situational analysis focuses on identifying the strength of the community by diagonising the five capitals(Physical, Natural, Financial, Social, Human) and suggest options for livelihood improvement. Objective: 1.Livelihood improvement of the poor and vulnerable.2. Creating an enabling environment 3. Capacity building of the primary and secondary stake holders.Out puts:1.Enhanced and sustainable livelihood options for resource poor and disadvantaged identified and supported in project areas. 2.Resource poor and disadvantaged organised in project areas to effectively identify, plan and implement livelihood activities and participate in wider for a and processes.3.GO,PRI, NGO,PIA work effectively with communities on (pro poor) livelihoods and initiatives in four project districts. 4.Strategic constraints to livelihood of resource poor and disadvantaged are identified and reviewed and improvements proposed to Government.5.Appropriate approaches and interventions developed through the project are replicated in the four project districts and disseminated within Orissa and national level for a.

Methods: Participatory, Collaborative and Convergence. Stages of implementation: Rapport building,Community mobilistion, Preparation of micro plan, Formation of village level institutions, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Role of stakeholders: Community members are actors and all others are facilitators.

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.6 Даты начала и окончания реализации Подхода

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Promotion of tuber crops for food security, Participatory technology development, Livestock management, Grassroot institutions building,Microenterprise development through Self Help Groups, Policy advocacy,Adopt participatory processes)

1.Livelihood of the poorest improved in four districts in a sustainable and replicable way.2.WORLP will provide ENABLING ENVIRONMENT to initiate this experiment.3.Bring about a clear understanding of-what is watershed- (emphasizing equity, social justice and local government / PRI).4.develop a synergistic strategy.5.Orient agencies to work towards the synergistic strategy- capacity building.5.Create and strengthen appropriate institutions at different levels for implementing and monitoring common strategy. 6.Pursue necessary policy change in regards to fund management and inter-department, inter-agency coordination.7.At the grassroots level i.e., watershed level demonstrate convergence of activities.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Capacity building(Knowledge, skill and attitude) of the primary and secondary stake holders.Limited livelihood options.Sectoral approach by line departments.

2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	интерактивное	Exposure visit and demonstration; Approach is initiated with rapport building stage through small interactive meeting, conducting mapping exercises and focussed group discussion to understand the village situation.Exposure and demonstration help the land users to identify gaps in the existing and im
планирование	интерактивное	Mainly: rapid/participatory rural appraisal; partly: public meetings; 1.For livelihood situational analysis. 2. Focussed Group discussion for indepth analyis of constraints and oppertunities of a particular group.3. Palli Sabha to negotiate and obtain a consensus on the plan.
выполнение	внешняя поддержка	Mainly: responsibility for major steps; partly: responsibility for minor steps; Implementation of the programme is the prime responsibility of the user group.NRM volunteers are assisting the UG on technical guidance like laying contours, bunds and trenches.Involved landless during the implementation
мониторинг/ оценка	самоорганизация	Mainly: measurements/observations; partly: reporting; Watershed Development Team member and WC check measure the work before payment. The report submitted by the WC is reviewed by the Project implementing agency(PIA). The estimated cost is approved by the committee and then the expenditure is made.
Research	нет

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• в основном землепользователи при поддержке специалистов по УЗП

Поясните:

Interventions promoted mainly on the existing indegeneous practices and based on peoples strength.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The technical knowhow was transferred to the NRM volunteers and land users through training and demonstration Then the volunteer assisted the land users in developing proposal and implementation of the SWC Technology.

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи

• extensionists/trainers (2), SWC specialists (3)

Тип обучения:

• в ходе работы
• обмен опытом между фермерами
• опытные участки

Рассматриваемые темы:

Understanding of present land use and future treatment measures, determination of slope, use of tools like A frame, hand level, layout of contours, trench and bund, role of UG etc.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory technology development, field demonstration, exposure visits and in field training; Key elements: Use of participatory tools, NRM volunteers, Insitu training, demonstration and exposure visits; 1) Mainly: NRM volunteers, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent 2) Mainly: NRM volunteers, Partly: projects own extension structure and agent; Extension staff: specifically hired project employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users; Activities: Meeting, exposure,training and demonstration

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Five NRM volunteers have been created in each watershed to assist in SWC work.Three WDT and three LST have been in position for extension and awareness creation among the land users for ten watersheds.

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• да, умеренно

Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:

• местные

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая
• повышение компетенций/ обучение

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

technical aspects were regular monitored through observations

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored through observations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through observations

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through observations

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Focussing the poorest through well being grouping for livelihood improvement, Grant component for the poorest earmarked in the livelihood guideline from watershed plus funds,Block approach for treatment considering poor people, poor land, contributiona nd ridge to valley, developed livelihood focussed micr plan process for the project.Transperency through social audit.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• экономика / маркетинг
• технология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Participatory technology development in farmers field.MART, New Delhi has taken up a six months study on developing marketing strategy.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Если точный годовой бюжет неизвестен, укажите примерный диапазон затрат:

• > 1 000 000

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (DFID,UK): 85.0%; local community / land user(s) (UG): 15.0%

5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям

Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?

Нет

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• нет

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• за денежное вознаграждение

5.4 Кредитование

Предоставлялись ли в рамках Подхода кредиты на мероприятия УЗП?

Нет

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• да

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
We are working together (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Ugs and SHGs be promoted in amore democratic way)
It is our work (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Feeling of ownership needs to be strengthed)
We have been able to practise the SWC activity in a better way (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Exposure to learn more about SWC activities.)

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Community take their own decision (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: making the institutions more democratic)
Revolving fund (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increased frequency of internal lending and repayment)
Village level institutions (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: provide autonomy)
Village volunteers/link workers (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: capacity building)

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Poverty categorisation based on criteria developed by the community	Criteria has already been developed nad circulated
Difficult to address all the issues of livelihood within the project time frame	Strategy needs to be developed for better convergence with line department to expedite the process

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Success stories compilation, News letter, Project memorandum, Livehood microplan of watershed

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

Project Director(Watershed), Nuapada Project Director(Watershed)